SHRI SANJAY AGARWAL, Uttar Pradesh V. THE ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

ITA 328/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5707 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE (SINGLE MEMBER CASE) BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 328/IND/2014 A.Y. : 2008-09 SHRI SANJAY AGARWAL, ACIT, SISWA BAZAR, MAHLARGANJ UP VS. 2(1), BHOPAL APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. ABMPA1402F A PPELLANT S BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.A.VERMA O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, BHOPAL, DATED 06.01.2014 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09. DATE OF HEARING : 22 .02. 20 16 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 .02. 20 16 SHRI SANJAY AGARWAL, MALHARGANJ (UP) VS. ACIT, BHOP AL I.T.A.NO. 328/IND/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 2 2 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, NOBODY IS PRESEN T FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS SHRI R.A. VERMA, LD. DR IS PRESENT FOR THE REVENUE. 3. THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 02 .05.2014, AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHEET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. REG ISTERED NOTICE FOR HEARING THE APPEAL FOR 13.10.2015 AND 14 .12.2015, WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE, AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT IT HAS COME BACK. NONE APPEARED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED ON TH E ABOVE DATE. TODAY I.E. ON 22.02.2016, AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESENT. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSE E IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE ITS APPEALS, THEREFORE, IT CAN NOT BE KEPT PENDING ADJUDICATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EFF ECTIVE REPRESENTATION ON THE APPOINTED DATE. MERE FILING O F APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH RATHER IT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE PERSUASION ALSO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE FOR DISMISSAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPP ORTED BY THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: SHRI SANJAY AGARWAL, MALHARGANJ (UP) VS. ACIT, BHOP AL I.T.A.NO. 328/IND/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 3 3 I) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 AND 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. II) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN T AKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. III) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. SHRI SANJAY AGARWAL, MALHARGANJ (UP) VS. ACIT, BHOP AL I.T.A.NO. 328/IND/2014 A.Y. 2008-09 4 4 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2016. CPU* 22.2